- Email: [email protected]
The recent evolution of farming landscapes in urban-centred regions
Landscape P~a~ni~, ll(l984)
307-326 Elsevier Science Publishers B-V., Amsterdam
307 -Printed
in The Netherlands
a subset a broader set of forces is introduced, and categorised into urbanisation forces, non-urbanisation forces and regional environment influences. Recognition of this range of forces is important in developing strategies for agricultural land conservation and landscape conservation involving farming landscapes. Furthermore, not all urbanisation forces have negative impacts on agriculture, and some stressful influences even have positive impacts from the agricultural productivity perspeetive. By way of synthesis, a 3-fold classification of the evolving farming landscapes near cities is suggested, based on various combinations of the underlying formative forces and the resultant agricultural responses, viz. landscapes of: (1) agricultural development; (2) agricultural adaptation; (3) agricultural degeneration. These landscapes are discussed from the perspective of agricultural land conservation and landscape conservation. In conclusion, three challenges are noted for agricultural land-use planning and management. First, how can existing landscapes of agricultural degeneration be upgraded and how can their future development be limited? Second, how can agricultural land and landscape conservation be reconciled? Finally, the limitations faced by agricultural land-use planning and management near cities because of the macro-scale national and international forces that agriculture continues to respond to must be acknowledged.
INTRODUCTION
With the substantial urban growth in Western countries in the post-war period, concern has developed for the conservation of valuable resources in the rural areas surrounding expanding cities. These resources, supportive of urban areas and urban growth, include water supplies, aggregate mineral resources, open space areas for various recreational pursuits and agricultural resources (Bryant et al., 1982). Agricultural land in particular has been the object of much concern, partly because of agricultural production concerns and partly because of amenity values in farming landscapes.
0304-3924/64/$03.00
0 1984 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
308
In this article, the nature of the evolving farming landscapes near cities is considered, based on research conducted by the author both in France and in Canada, with the main illustrations being drawn from the Ile-de-France (Paris) region, France. The discussion is related to two management concerns, viz. conservation of agricultural land resources and conservation of amenity values in farming landscapes. First, comments are made on a framework frequently used in discussing land use around cities. The two main management concerns are introduced and the need to consider all the forces shaping the agricultural system and landscape is established. Second, the forces influencing agriculture near cities are discussed and a categorisation of farming landscapes based on the dynamics of change is developed. The implications for agricultural land-use planning and management are discussed in the concluding section. A major framework that has influenced how geographers and planners have analysed rural areas around cities is based on the notion of urbanoriented elements invading the countryside. Its geographic expression is a series of concentric zones of decreasing intensity of urban elements outwards from the built-up urban area, through the inner urban fringe, the outer urban fringe (together making up the rural-urban fringe or the urban fringe), the urban shadow zone and, finally, to the rural hinterland - all of which together comprise the urban-centred region (cf. Bryant et al., 1982). Transition, intermixture and change - of population, land use, property structure - are key notions underlying this zonal framework, which is readily associated with changing landscapes in terms of relative importance of urban elements and adaptations in “traditional” rural activities. The structure of this zonal framework clearly emphasises an urban-oriented interpretation of land use and landscape change around cities. It is argued that this emphasis is found again in the analysis of agriculture near cities; a major land-use activity and supporter of landscape around most cities. Two main concerns regarding agriculture near cities have developed. First, concern for the loss of agricultural land and agricultural productivity resulting from urban growth (see, e.g., Furuseth and Pierce, 1982) and second, for amenity values in farming landscapes (Bryant and Russwurm, 1979). The former concern has centred on the conversion of high-quality agricultural land to urban uses (e.g. Krueger, 1978) and on the negative impacts of development on the continuing agricultural structure. The concern is more easily expressed in terms of long-term food production potential rather than in terms of actual food production volumes, especially given agricultural overproduction problems in Western countries. It was formulated much earlier in the U.K. - partly due to strategic reasons (H.M.S.O., 1942) - than in North America, although agricultural land conservation has become increasingly important in North America as an issue from the 1960’s onwards. In contrast, concern in France over the loss of agricultural land and productivity because of urban growth has yet to be clearly articulated. Agriculture is also a major supporter of landscape around most cities.
309
Rural areas close to cities, even without landscape attributes rated highly on any absolute amenity scale, possess significant amenity value for the urban populations because of accessibility. However, concern for landscape amenity has also developed unevenly. In North America, some concern exists over maintaining the “rural character” of certain settlements, but this concern is only slowly spreading to agricultural landscapes. Again, in contrast, concern over the amenity value of farmland is more clearly articulated in Western Europe (see, e.g., Prefecture de la R6gion d’lle-de-France (PRIF), 1976; Blacksell and Gilg, 1981; Region d’Ilede-France (RIF), 1983). Sometimes, the management thrust affecting agricultural land may not be focussed explicitly on amenity, yet amenity may still be important. For instance, while the central government’s main purpose for London’s Metropolitan Green Belt has been urban containment, its success for many people is measured increasingly not only in terms of control of urban development, but also in terms of the “quality” of Green Belt land (Munton, 1983). In other schemes, the emphasis is clearly on amenity, e.g. the Zones Nutwelles d’Equilibre of the mid-1970’s and the more recent Ceinture Verte in the Paris region (e.g. PRIF, 1976; RIF, 1983). For the Ceinture Verte, the primary purpose is conservation and development of amenity values in landscapes, agricultural issues being important only as they influence achievement of this primary purpose. In developing appropriate management strategies, the origins of the pressures leading to (a) loss of agricultural land and productivity and (b) deterioration or “negative” change in farming landscapes near cities, mustbe established. Agriculture must therefore be viewed in a broad context. Agricultural land, for instance, only acquires immediate agricultural value when combined with labour, management, capital and a supporting infrastructure into a productive, operating farm system (Bryant and Russwurm, 1979). Farming landscapes, in turn, are more than simply the result of combining a set of inputs into an agricultural production system. Understanding agriculture and farming landscapes requires recognition of their links with the broader society (Olmstead, 1970). Firstly, the farm unit consists of a variety of elements, e.g. fields, labour units and machinery, linked together by flows within an operating system overseen by a farm entrepreneur or manager. These elements can be organised conceptually into sub-systems, e.g. the spatial, resource management and labour management sub-systems. The farm entrepreneur controls the sub-systems to greater or lesser degrees. In many cases, the farmer can exert little control because the elements and on-farm sub-systems are but part of a broader environment. Thus, although the farmer can modify field structure (size, shape, layout), for example, there are important constraints imposed by the existing settlement and cadastral structure. Similarly, the ecosystem places constraints on what enterprises can be engaged in, even though the biophysical environment can be modified to some extent, e.g. by drainage, fertilisation and stone-removal. The broader economic, social and political systems also place constraints on the farm operation.
310
Secondly, flows, e.g. of products, inputs and information, tie the farm and the agricultural industry even more strongly to the broader society. This independence has become more complex as agriculture has increasingly replaced on-farm resources, e.g. labour, with non-farm inputs. Inexorably, the dynamics of agricultural change and of the broader society are interwoven; agriculture near cities is thus tied both to the meso-scale processes operating within urban-centred regions and to macro-scale national and international forces, This complexity is further comp~cated by the differences between farm entrepreneurs (Bryant, 1981) and their individual farm situations, e.g. stage in life cycle, educational background, family size, likelihood of family succession, financial wealth and basic attitudes to farming (cf. Bryant, 1973a). Thus, the forces influencing farm investment decisions that result in farm structure and farm landscape changes have both on-farm and off-farm origins.
PRESSURES ON FARMING IN URBAN-CRN~RED REGIONS
Western agriculture has undergone tremendous changes in the past century, related to the processes of economic development, industrialisation and urbanisation. For example, agriculture has experienced severe labour competition from growing non-farm sectors as well as substantial t~hnolo~~~ change, including improvement in transportation technology and the accompanying inter-regional competition. There is no reason to believe that agriculture near cities has been any less subject to such forces than elsewhere even though much of the research on farming in urban-centred regions has emphasised a particular sub-set of urbanisation forces in explaining agricultural change (Munton, 1974). Indeed, farming change in these regions is often viewed as a process fuelled by urban forces which give rise to essentially *‘negative” agricultural change (Bryant and Russwurm, 1979). Thus, little at~ntion has been given either to other forces or to how the whole might vary regionally. In response to this, a framework incorporating both urbanisation and nonurbanisation forces has been suggested (Bryant et al., 1982). The urbanisation forces are associated with growing urban areas, viz. demand for agricultural produce and labour in the non-farm sectors, and for land for various urban-oriented functions. It is the set of negative impacts on agriculture related to the demand for land that has attracted the most attention. The nonurbanisation forces include technological change, general changes in living standards and life-style, inter-regional competition and political and institutional change. These forces combine in different ways to influence agricultural structure. The interactions may be modified in different regional or sub-regional environments and by the intervention of farm-level factors in the decisionmaking process linking the exogenous urbanisation and non-urb~~ation
311
forces with the agricultural structure (Fig, 1). How do these forces combine and how are the effects reflected in the farming landscape? What are the implications for conservation of the agricultural land resource and of farming landscapes?
farm
LEVEL
unit
-
Fig. 1. Factors influencing
agricultural change in urban-centred
regions.
In terms of agricultural viability, various combinations of forces and regional environment factors are suggested (Fig. 2). For simplicity, the impacts on agricultural viability are dichotomised as negative or positive, although in fact various degrees of impact exist. Furthermore, “positive” refers to the impact after an agricultural response takes place - the initial impact may be stressful, e.g. labour competition, but a positive response
312
may result. Clearly, both negative and positive influences may emanate from all three sources simultaneously. The net impact on agricultural structure and the evolving farming landscape depends on their interplay and refative strengths. UREANISATION
FORCES
. Positive
-
P
Negative
-
N
R E
F : A
r~~~~~~
I.
F A
L
c
”
I:
I
FP :: F-4 1
Fig. 2. Influences
on agricultural performance
in urban-centred
regions.
At one extreme, all forces might be complementary; for example, labour withdrawal from agriculture due to an urban tabour demand may combine with technological change (e.g. mech~~ation) in an area with favourable physical conditions to stimulate farm consolidation. The plateau areas around Paris illustrate this particularly well. Helped by favourable physical conditions and a process of property consolidation already established by the mid-19th century, large-scale arable farms now dominate these areas (Brunet, 1960; Bourdonnaye and Meunier, 1983). Other associated landscape changes are extensive hedgerow removal and the development of very large fields (see Figs. 3 and 4). The exodus of agricultural labour and entrepreneurs encouraged substantial farm consolidation, including much farmland rental, which then facilitated the subsequent adoption and inflation of agriculturat mechanisation. This process has practically become synonymous with agricultural development, modemisation and prosperity. Hence, when halted or impaired, for example, by high land prices near growing urban areas, many farmland conservationists interpret this as a major indicator of ~cultur~ deterioration (Meunier, 1983).
R
313
Another urbanisation force, neither unambiguously negative nor positive, may partially offset high land prices, viz. the increase in non-farm ownership of farmland around cities. This may represent advance land acquisition for urban development, protection of capital against inflation, incidental acquisition of land with purchase of a former farmhouse, or purchase of land for a building-lot (Bryant, 1982). This farmland may then be rented to remaining farmers. With a secure rental arrangement, long-term improvement in farm structure is permitted, eshibiting complementarity again. Where the arrangement is precarious, negative impacts may occur, both in terms of farm viability and landscape change.
Fig. 3. Typical culture rienced
Open arable agricultural landscape in the Plaine de Versailles, near Maulette. of many of the plateau areas in the Ilede-France region, a large-scale arable agrihas developed with large, consolidated fields. This is an area which has experelatively little population growth in the past 14 years.
Other complementary relationships stem from the market effect of a nearby urban agglomeration. One major effect early on was the development of specialised intensive agricultural zones around major urban areas. Often, these had developed when transportation costs were high, thus conferring an economic rent on local vegetable, fruit, milk and even vineyard production. Many of these zones still remain (see Fig. 5 and Fig. 4), although often in a fragmented form now because of more recent urban expansion (AREEAR, 1976; Meunier, 1983). In Ilede-France, by 1900 a whole series of intensive agricultural areas had developed, especially in the valley areas south and west, and on the hill slopes north and west, of Paris (Phlipponneau, 1956; Bourdonnaye and Meunier, 1983).
313
313
New transportation technology has attenuated the advantages these areas once had; for example, the share of Ilede-France in supplying its own vegetable and fruit needs dropped from 81% by tonnage in 1895 to 46% by 1950 (Bourdonnaye and Meunier, 1983). Nonetheless, some advantages remain. e.g. due to continued high transport costs to an urban-dominated market and opportunities for short-circuiting marketing channels. An example of the former is the sod production around many Central Canadian cities, while examples of the latter include direct sales to large-volume consumers (e.g. factory cantines, supe~~kets), “pick-your-own” (self-service) sales outlets, farm shops and horticultural operations with retail outlets (Laureau, 1983).
Fig. 5. Intensive orchard area between Aigremont and Chambourcy. Part of an intensive fruit-production area on the south slopes of the Seine valley between Orgeval and Chambourcy, this was a flourishing intensive agricultural zone from the 19th century to the 1950’s; since then, it has suffered particularly from urban development pressures and worsening markets for its fruit. It is still the major fruit-production area in the Ile-deFrance region.
The more recent types of direct sales outlets, often involving intensive vegetable (e.g. beans) and fruit (e.g. strawberries) production, are not associated with distinct zones. “Pick-your-own” outlets have a natural affinity for highways, but the general effect is a greater scattering of activities. Sometimes, these recent developments bring an intensive, almost industrialised, aspect to the farming landscape (e.g. greenhouses), a development not always appreciated by some planners and amenityconscious people (Munton,
316
1983). Yet, they may also break the monotony of an agricultural landscape reflecting an extensive field crop orientation (Fig. 6 and Fig. 4). Similarly, near-urban proximity enables some farmers to develop enterprises based on excess farm resources, e.g. boarding of horses, riding stables and long-term storage of recreational vehicles and boats in out-dated barns. These activities can provide useful supplementary income sources, thus increasing the financial and economic strength of the farm entrepreneur. Once again, the associated landscape attributes are not always well-appreciated by the amenity-conscious public.
Fig. 6. Isolated intensive vegetable and horticultural operation at Bazainville, another area with little population growth.
in the Plaine de Versailles
So far, the focus on complementary relationships between urbanisation and other forces has emphasised the point that the surroundings of cities are not a complete death-trap for agricultural endeavour! The net effect has been positive from the agricultural performance perspective. However, in all cases noted so far, some landscape changes may be viewed negatively from an amenity perspective, e.g. large fields, large metal barns and silos, greenhouses and broiler sheds. Overall, however, from an agricultural performance perspective, landscapes characterised by such complementary relationships can usefully be labelled landscapes of agricultural development. What happens when the forces are conflicting? The ultimate conflict is actual conversion of farmland for non-farm uses. Furthermore, for the continuing agricultural landscape and structure, non-farm development forces can reach critical levels beyond which agricultural development is thwarted
317
despite potentially positive non-urbanisation forces or regional environment factors. Here, the interplay of opposing forces results in agricultural degeneration. In such situations, a combination of several non-farm developmentrelated forces usually exists; individually, many of these forces appear to be insufficient to lead to agricultural decline. Trespass, theft and vandalism, for instance, generally create more of a nuisance than real financial hardship. Sometimes, adjacency of non-farm development may be associated with levels of theft and vandalism which make the continued operation of a particular parcel of land problematic (Fig. 7). Similarly, harassment from non-farmers complaining about certain farming practices constitute another annoyance. Problems often cited include odours from intensive poultry and hog operations, dust from harvesting, noise from machinery, e.g. grain drying machinery, and diffusion of chemicals from fertiliser and pesticide application. Because of such complaints, some jurisdictions have adopted regulations to help separate nonfarm residences and intensive animal husbandry operations (cf. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, 1976). Public health concerns may dictate
Fig. 7. Abandoned field adjacent to non-farm development at Chambourcy. While this type of abandonment may reflect operational difficulties due to theft and vandalism, there are usually many other factors that combine to cause abandonment, such as retirement, fragmentation and poor markets.
318
the separation of certain land uses, but some problems arise from improper husbandry practices, e.g. inadequate waste management, and part of the problem may also reflect lack of understanding of agricultural operations by recent non-farm immigrants to the countryside - both of which can potentially be modified. Farm fragmentation, due to new highway construction, increased road traffic, other ~ghts-of-way (e.g. hydra-lines) and/or scattered non-farm development, can also render continuation of normal farm operations practically impossible. Awkw~diy-shads, small parcels may be cut off from the main farm by new highways and become abandoned (Fig. 8). Frequently, where exchange arrangements with neighbouring farms are not possible, the parcel may simply be bought by the highway authority and left abandoned. Heavy traffic may also make large-sized machinery movement difficult. Finally, in the more open countryside, scattered development may produce awkwardly-shaped fields with a much-diminished value for agriculture, thus hastening the process of farmland conversion.
Fig. 8. Abandoned farmland between two highways and a recreational area in the new town of St. ~uentin-en-Yvelines. Again, factors other than fragmentation contribute to such phenomena, such as imminent development and distance from main farming areas.
All these influences are associated with landscape impacts, both of the non-farm elements themselves and those associated with accompanying farm adjustments. At the limit, the farm adjustments involve disinvestment and
319
ultimately idling of the land resource. However, where the impact is less and other factors favourable, adaptive or coping adjustments may be made. For example, fencing parcels of land, especially in conjunction with relatively intensive fruit, market gardening and ho~icultur~ operations, is one response to vandalism and theft (Fig. 9). Adjustments in farming practices may help reduce complaints, e.g. not operating gram drying machinery late at night or making mod~ications to waste disposal systems. With fr~entation caused by highway construction, where land exchange arrangements are not possible, overpasses or underpasses may be feasible - a highway construction cost rather than a farmer-based adjustment. Machinery storage facilities may even be erected on separated blocks of land of sufficient size, or partial dismantling of machinery may be feasible, Some adaptations thus have a particular landscape impact, e.g. protective fencing, which may present problems from an amenity perspective, but which permit farmers to cope with certain negative influences in their en~o~ent.
Fig. 9. Fenced-in orchards along the heav~~trave~ed north of intensive urban development at Plaisir.
N30’7 at Feucnerolles,
just 5 km
Other non-farm development-related pressures are less visible in the landscape. Again, in extreme cases, they may seriously undermine ~c~tur~ viability as well as generating particular landscape changes. The costs ofservicing rural non-farm popuiaations when the costs are borne by property taxation may increase farming costs in urbanising areas since farms, being rela-
320
tively land-extensive, tend to bear a heavier burden than the non-farm population (e.g. Morgan, 1978). However, given the preferential treatment often given to farmland (see, e.g., Furuseth and Pierce, 1982), it seems unlikely that this factor in itself would lead to agricultural degeneration. The greater levels of uncertainty presumed to occur in advance of relatively rapid urban development (e.g. Sinclair, 1967; Bryant, 1974, 1981) have been hypothesised as shortening planning horizons for farm investment. Thus, the cost of agricultural investment increases and the likelihood of maintaining or increasing it decreases. Fixed investment would be more affected than variable costs; in extreme cases, the land might even remain idle. From the limited empirical evidence (cf. Bryant, 1981; Mu&on, 1983), the relative importance of this phenomenon is not yet adequately established. The ambiguity of the evidence is no doubt related to the relatively small potential losses of agricultural investment compared to the potentially large capital gains from sale of owner-occupied land for development. Thus, some recent field work around Paris (Bryant, 1981) suggested that while farmers are well aware of the uncertainties and urban pressures around them, they do not necessarily adopt strategies that support the hypothesis outlined above. Uncertainty, of course, is not only triggered by proximity to existing urban development, but also by other indicators of high development potential, e.g. planning designation of land for development, short-term rental of the farmland (especially in the West European context where farmland leases are generally much longer than in North America) and ownership of farmland by a development company. Evidence of agricultural disinvestment resulting from these factors is not easy to come by; behaviourally, the proposed mechanism is intuitively appealing, but the potential capital gains and the differences among farmers in terms of choice of coping strategies suggest that considerable variation is likely. Only with imminent development is land likely to be treated in similar ways by farmers, e.g. within an area undergoing expropriation for a New Town. In terms of landscape impacts, the frequent assumption is that high expectations of urban development are associated with an observable decline in agricultural land maintenance. At the extreme, there is no question - for instance, in Central Canada, where former agricultural land has been surveyed and staked out for development, but where final construction is held up, fields of golden rod and scrub are quick to appear! Beyond that, the evidence is less clear. Munton (1983), for example, graded land maintenance standards for a sample of farm occupiers in London’s Metropolitan Green Belt, His analysis supports several of the relationships implied above, e.g. poor land maintenance was associated with short-term renting of farmland and proximity to existing development and highways. However, considerable variation existed among the farmers surveyed and “some occupiers right on the urban edge continue to farm well, while others maintain their land poorly for no apparent reason” (Munton, 1983, p. 132). Furthermore, while there was support for a relationship between farmland appearance (the
321
landscape dimension) and urban-related factors, the link with agricultural investment and land productivity, the dimension of greater concern to the farmland conservationist, was not clarified. Another characteristic of farmers related to urbanisation forces with potentially negative impacts on agricultural performance and landscape is occupational status, viz. full-time, part-time or hobby farmer. The evidence is, however, contradictory. In Munton’s (1983) study, part-time farmers were associated with high land maintenance standards, while hobby farmers were associated with lower levels. Clearly, a whole range of part-time farmers exists and the debate continues (see, e.g. Fuller and Mage, 1976). Part-time farmers may opt for farming systems involving lower levels of intensity, but the comparison of part-time and full-time farmers on farms of similar scale and enterprise-mix is ambiguous regarding relative efficiency (cf. Gasson, 1966). Individually, many non-farm development-related pressures may have relatively limited negative impacts on agriculture. They may therefore be outweighed by more positive non-urbanisation forces or regional environment factors. Thus, in such cases, one would not expect to find agricultural structures degenerating; instead, one might expect evidence of continued development encouraged by the positive forces as well as adaptations to the negative pressures that nonetheless exist. Although sometimes called “landscapes of uncertainty” (cf. AREA, 1978), it seems more realistic to label them landscapes of agricultuml
adaptation.
With extreme non-farm development pressures, however, landscapes of agricultural degeneration exist. Severe farm fragmentation, vandalism and theft and great uncertainty would thwart many farmers. Frequently though, where agricultural degeneration has reached serious proportions in the urban fringe, unfavourable non-urbanisation or regional environment factors are also present. For instance, specialised fruit areas near Paris have suffered increased competition from regions with greater natural comparative advantages (AREEAR, 1976; Legendre, 1981; Biancale, 1982). In addition, some of these zones evolved under quite different conditions of farm technology; in particular, in the north Paris suburbs, intensive fruit and vegetable production developed on small, fragmented farms. Before any significant mechanisation, few problems existed even with the substantial intermixture of non-farm housing and agricultural land that developed. However, during the late 1940’s and the 1950’s, as mechanisation expanded in these sectors, these parcels of land became more and more inadequate. As urban development pressures increased, large-scale housing projects, e.g. at Sarcelles, created severe vandalism and trespass problems on adjacent parcels, while areas with a very fragmented property structure attracted additional single family housing, the orchards often being transformed into gardens. In these zones, remaining orchards are often poorly maintained and increasingly unproductive, with idling being not uncommon (Fig. 10). In extreme cases, an agricultural enclave remains where urban pressures are at their worst
(Bourdonnaye and Meunier, 1933). The long-term survival of such enclaves is problematic under a free-enterprise management system. Their survival as regional landscape components in the urbancentred region thus demands very special management approaches. When these zones are eventually built over, their total ag%-ulturat resources are not necessarily lost. For Deuil-la-Barre and Groslay, north of
Fig. 10. Abandoned orchard new single-family dwellings.
at Chambourcy,
Across
the
road from this parcel are several
Paris, for instanee, a story unfolds of farmers purchasing additional land for new orchards some 19-15 km from their farmsteads from the 1940’s (Bryant, 1973b), while gradually relinquishing their initial core fruitland a form of adaptation involving substitution of location. For Ilede-France, this is simply a recent example of a pattern of consolidation of specialised agricultural zones, intrusion of urban growth, and migration of the specialised farms beyond, that has recurred over several centuries (P~ippo~eau, 1956; AREEAR, 1976). This particular zone, ~ndergo~g severe urban devel-
323
opment pressures, had its problems compounded by an outdated farm structure and strong competition. Similarly, other non-urbanisation and regional environment factors may weaken agricultural viability or force change, e.g. reduction of protective tariff barriers and poor land quality, respectively. CONCLUSIONS
Agriculture in urbancentred regions has had to respond to a variety of pressures, only partly identifiable with non-farm development pressures. For agricultural land conservation, this implies that non-farm development control alone is not likely to be sufficient to achieve agricultural land conservation. To be productive, agricultural land must be combined with people and capital. The agricultural land conservationist must therefore be concerned with farm viability and continuation of a viable agricultural community. This argument also supports the notion that agricultural land conservation cannot be achieved simply through the traditional process of land-use planning, but demands additional measures in terms of farm structure improvements. For instance, in order to maintain competitiveness, urban fringe zones where agriculture is to be maintained should not be discriminated against in terms of farm improvement programmes and access to credit. Agricultural land conservation is not synonymous, however, with farm landscape conservation. The former implies continued agricultural develop ment, often associated with landscape changes not highly valued by the amenity-conscious public. Certainly, in landscapes of agricultural degeneration one might expect a fairly high coincidence between agricultural degeneration and deterioration in farm landscape amenity values. On the other hand, in landscapes of agricultural adaptation or landscapes of agricultural development, where positive influences outweigh negative pressures, agricultural development might contain elements of limited amenity value. Similarly, landscape amenity conservation may conflict with agricultural development and the economic exigencies of farming. Around Paris, in some scenically-protected areas, e.g. the Chevreuse Valley south of the agglomeration, finding ways of developing a viable agricultural structure has proved especially difficult because of conflicts between the buildings, infrastructure and field pattern deemed necessary for agricultural development and their low amenity value (Biancsle et al., 1978; Kuhn, 1980). The conceptualisation of the three types of farming landscapes is based on the underlying contemporary formative processes, rather than on the morphological characteristics of the biophysical environment and the type of agriculture. Thus, intensive specialised agriculture can potentially be found in landscapes of agricultural degeneration, agricultural adaptation and agricultural development; similarly for other types of agriculture. This alone suggests considerable flexibility in developing approaches to agricultural land in urban-centred regions. Furthermore, we should expect variation within each landscape type, both between farmers and even between fields on the
324
same farm. Even where conflicts seem insurmountable, it is still possible to find particular farms or groups of farms which have somehow managed to survive and develop - such exceptional cases merit close scrutiny in any attempt to develop management strategies. Conversely, in landscapes with positive ~~uences dom~ant, examples of ~~cultur~ disinvestment and deteriorating farm landscapes can be found, reflecting specific sets of circumstances affecting particular farms and land parcels. How these microscale differences should be ~comrn~at~ in developing movement strate gies is not clear, but they most certainly need to be addressed. From the agricultural land-use planning and management perspective, the three landscape types discussed above seem to represent a more realistic way of viewing agricultural change near cities. In any dynamic situation, stress is created - some is unquestion~ly negative, but some is positive. In particular, the landscapes of agricultural adaptation emphasise that innovation and adaptation in agriculture do occur in urban-centred regions, even in the urban fringe. Just because con~dicto~ forces operate and influence agriculture there does not mean that the net result is negative. By way of conclusion, it is suggested that the management challenge for agriculture in urban-centred regions is threefold. First, how can public intervention upgrade existing landscapes of agricultural degeneration and limit their development? Second, how can agricultural land conservation, with its implied development of agriculture, be reconciled with the increasing concern for the amenity values in farming landscapes? Third, and finally, how can agricultural land-use plarming and movement near cities cope with limitations caused by the macro-scale national and international forces to which agriculture there must continue to respond. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This article was written while the author was on sabbatical leave from the University of Waterloo, supported by a Leave Fellowship from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and a research grant from the French Ministry of External Affairs, which are gratefully acknowledged. Thanks are also extended to M. Delavigne and M. Squamioni of the Institut d’Am&nagement et d’Urbanisme de la RGgion d’llede-France and to M. Meunier of the Atelier Rggional d’Etudes Economiques et d’Amdnage_ ment Rural dlle-de-France for giving their time in discussing the ideas contained in this article. REFERENCES AREA (Atelier de Recherche et d’Etudes d’Am6nagement). 1978. evolution agricole et foncigre des rdgions suburbaines. Cahiers de l’IAURIF, 53: 3-40. AREEAR (Atelier R6gional d’Etudes Economiquer et d’Am&wgement Rural), 1975. L’Agriculture Sp6cialisBe en Xle de France. Ministry of Agriculture, Paris, 443 pp.
325 Biancale, M.. 1982. Les Coteaux de Chambourcy ai Orgeval. IAURIF (Institut d’Amenagement et d’urbanisme de la Region d’Ile-de-France), Paris, 79 pp. Biancale, M., Boyer, P. and Braut. M.-N., 1978. Etude sur le Devenir des Terres Acquises par la S.A.F.E.R. IAURIF,Paris, 116 pp. BlackselI, M. and Gilg. A.. 1981. The Countryside: Planning and Change. The Resource Management Series 2, George Allen and Unwin, London, 262 pp. Bourdonnaye (de la), A. and Meunier, J.D., 1983. L’Agriculture dans la Ceinture Verte de Paris. AREEAR, Ministry of Agriculture, Paris, 17 pp. Brunet, P., 1960. Structure Agraire et Economic Rurale des Plateaux Tertiaires entre la Seine et 1’Oise. Thesis for Doctorat es Lettres, University of Caen. Bryant, C.R., 1973a. L’agriculture face a la croissance m&ropolitaine: le cas des exploitations de grande culture expropriees par l’emprise de 1’Aeroport Paris-Nord. Econ. Rurale, 95: 23-25. Bryant, CR., 1973b. L’agriculture face 2 la croissance metropolitaine: le cas des exploitations fruitieres de Groslay et Deuil-la-Barre dans la grande banlieue de l’agglomeration parisienne. Econ. Rurale, 98: 35-55. Bryant, C.R., 1974. The anticipation of urban expansion. Part I. Some implications for agricultural land use practices and land use zoning. Geogr. Pol., 28: 93-102. Bryant, C.R., 1981. Agricultural change in an urbanizing environment: a case study from the Paris region, 1968 to 1975. Can. Geogr., 25: 27-45. Bryant, C.R., 1982. The Rural Real Estate Market: Geographic Patterns of Structure and Change in an Urban Fringe Environment. Publication 18, Department of Geography, University of Waterloo, Canada, 153 pp. Bryant, C.R. and Russwurm, L.H., 1979. The impact of non-agricultural development on agriculture: a synthesis. Plan Can., 19: 122-139. Bryant, C.R., Russwurm, L.H. and McLellan, A.G., 1982. The City’s Countryside: Land and its Management in the Rural-Urban Fringe. Longmans, London, 255 pp. Fuller, A.M. and Mage, J.A. (Editors), 1976. Part-Time Farming: Problem or Resource in Rural Development. Geo. Abstracts, Norwich, England. Furuseth, 0. and Pierce, J.T., 1982. Agricultural Land in an Urban Society. AAG Resource Publications in Geography, Washington, DC. Gasson, R.M., 1966. The Influence of Urbanization on Farm Ownership and Practice: Some Aspects of the Effects of London on Farms and Farm People in Kent and Sussex. Studies in Rural Land Use 7, Wye College, Wye, England. H.M.S.O., 1942. Land Utilisation in Rural Areas. Scott Committee Report, Cmd. 6378. Ministry of Works and Planning, London. Krueger, R.R.. 1978. Urbanization of the Niagara fruit belt. Can. Geogr., 22: 179-194. Kuhn, C., 1980. Bases Pedologiques du Developpement de l’hgriculture du Part Nature1 Regional de Chevreuse. IAURIF, Paris, 94 pp. Laureau, X., 1983. Agriculture p&i-urbaine: des entreprises pour demain. L’Agriculture d’Entreprise (Bulletin of the Centre de 1’Agriculture d’Entreprise, Paris), 171-172: 3-42. Legendre, A., 1981. Etude de la Stabilite de 1’Agriculture dans la Frange Urbaine du Valde-Marne. Atelier pour l’urbanisme, la Nature et l’Energie, Paris, 78 pp. Meunier, J.D., 1983. L’Agriculture en Ile de France. Note prepared for the Conseil Regional de I’Ile-de-France, AREEAR, Ministry of Agriculture, Paris, 7 pp. Morgan, J.B., 1978. The Urban Fringe Taxation Problem: a Case Study of Glanbrook Township. Unpublished B.E.S. Dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Waterloo, Canada. Munton, R.J.C., 1974. Farming on the urban fringe. In: J.H. Johnson (Editor), Suburban Growth. Wiley, London, pp. 201-223. Munton, R.J.C., 1983. London’s Green Belt: Containment in Practice. The London Research Series in Geography 3, George Allen and Unwin, London, 178 pp.
326 Ohnstead. C-W., 1970. The phenomena, functioning units and systems of agriculture. Geogr. Pol., 19: 31-42. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, 1976. Agricultural Code of Practice. Government of Ontario, Toronto, Canada. Philipponneau, M., 1956. La Vie Rurale de la Banlieue Parisienne. A. Colin, Paris. Prefecture de la RBgion d’Ile-de-France (PRIF), 1976. Les Z.N.E. de la Region d’IledeFrance: le Hurepoix. IAURIF, Paris. RBgion d’IledteFrance (RIF), 1983. Projet de Ceinture Verte de Paris et sa Banlieue. IAURIF and Agence des Espaces Verts de la Region d’Ilede-France, Paris. Sinclair, R.J., 1967. Von Thunen and urban sprawl. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr., 57: 72-67.
307-326 Elsevier Science Publishers B-V., Amsterdam
307 -Printed
in The Netherlands
a subset a broader set of forces is introduced, and categorised into urbanisation forces, non-urbanisation forces and regional environment influences. Recognition of this range of forces is important in developing strategies for agricultural land conservation and landscape conservation involving farming landscapes. Furthermore, not all urbanisation forces have negative impacts on agriculture, and some stressful influences even have positive impacts from the agricultural productivity perspeetive. By way of synthesis, a 3-fold classification of the evolving farming landscapes near cities is suggested, based on various combinations of the underlying formative forces and the resultant agricultural responses, viz. landscapes of: (1) agricultural development; (2) agricultural adaptation; (3) agricultural degeneration. These landscapes are discussed from the perspective of agricultural land conservation and landscape conservation. In conclusion, three challenges are noted for agricultural land-use planning and management. First, how can existing landscapes of agricultural degeneration be upgraded and how can their future development be limited? Second, how can agricultural land and landscape conservation be reconciled? Finally, the limitations faced by agricultural land-use planning and management near cities because of the macro-scale national and international forces that agriculture continues to respond to must be acknowledged.
INTRODUCTION
With the substantial urban growth in Western countries in the post-war period, concern has developed for the conservation of valuable resources in the rural areas surrounding expanding cities. These resources, supportive of urban areas and urban growth, include water supplies, aggregate mineral resources, open space areas for various recreational pursuits and agricultural resources (Bryant et al., 1982). Agricultural land in particular has been the object of much concern, partly because of agricultural production concerns and partly because of amenity values in farming landscapes.
0304-3924/64/$03.00
0 1984 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
308
In this article, the nature of the evolving farming landscapes near cities is considered, based on research conducted by the author both in France and in Canada, with the main illustrations being drawn from the Ile-de-France (Paris) region, France. The discussion is related to two management concerns, viz. conservation of agricultural land resources and conservation of amenity values in farming landscapes. First, comments are made on a framework frequently used in discussing land use around cities. The two main management concerns are introduced and the need to consider all the forces shaping the agricultural system and landscape is established. Second, the forces influencing agriculture near cities are discussed and a categorisation of farming landscapes based on the dynamics of change is developed. The implications for agricultural land-use planning and management are discussed in the concluding section. A major framework that has influenced how geographers and planners have analysed rural areas around cities is based on the notion of urbanoriented elements invading the countryside. Its geographic expression is a series of concentric zones of decreasing intensity of urban elements outwards from the built-up urban area, through the inner urban fringe, the outer urban fringe (together making up the rural-urban fringe or the urban fringe), the urban shadow zone and, finally, to the rural hinterland - all of which together comprise the urban-centred region (cf. Bryant et al., 1982). Transition, intermixture and change - of population, land use, property structure - are key notions underlying this zonal framework, which is readily associated with changing landscapes in terms of relative importance of urban elements and adaptations in “traditional” rural activities. The structure of this zonal framework clearly emphasises an urban-oriented interpretation of land use and landscape change around cities. It is argued that this emphasis is found again in the analysis of agriculture near cities; a major land-use activity and supporter of landscape around most cities. Two main concerns regarding agriculture near cities have developed. First, concern for the loss of agricultural land and agricultural productivity resulting from urban growth (see, e.g., Furuseth and Pierce, 1982) and second, for amenity values in farming landscapes (Bryant and Russwurm, 1979). The former concern has centred on the conversion of high-quality agricultural land to urban uses (e.g. Krueger, 1978) and on the negative impacts of development on the continuing agricultural structure. The concern is more easily expressed in terms of long-term food production potential rather than in terms of actual food production volumes, especially given agricultural overproduction problems in Western countries. It was formulated much earlier in the U.K. - partly due to strategic reasons (H.M.S.O., 1942) - than in North America, although agricultural land conservation has become increasingly important in North America as an issue from the 1960’s onwards. In contrast, concern in France over the loss of agricultural land and productivity because of urban growth has yet to be clearly articulated. Agriculture is also a major supporter of landscape around most cities.
309
Rural areas close to cities, even without landscape attributes rated highly on any absolute amenity scale, possess significant amenity value for the urban populations because of accessibility. However, concern for landscape amenity has also developed unevenly. In North America, some concern exists over maintaining the “rural character” of certain settlements, but this concern is only slowly spreading to agricultural landscapes. Again, in contrast, concern over the amenity value of farmland is more clearly articulated in Western Europe (see, e.g., Prefecture de la R6gion d’lle-de-France (PRIF), 1976; Blacksell and Gilg, 1981; Region d’Ilede-France (RIF), 1983). Sometimes, the management thrust affecting agricultural land may not be focussed explicitly on amenity, yet amenity may still be important. For instance, while the central government’s main purpose for London’s Metropolitan Green Belt has been urban containment, its success for many people is measured increasingly not only in terms of control of urban development, but also in terms of the “quality” of Green Belt land (Munton, 1983). In other schemes, the emphasis is clearly on amenity, e.g. the Zones Nutwelles d’Equilibre of the mid-1970’s and the more recent Ceinture Verte in the Paris region (e.g. PRIF, 1976; RIF, 1983). For the Ceinture Verte, the primary purpose is conservation and development of amenity values in landscapes, agricultural issues being important only as they influence achievement of this primary purpose. In developing appropriate management strategies, the origins of the pressures leading to (a) loss of agricultural land and productivity and (b) deterioration or “negative” change in farming landscapes near cities, mustbe established. Agriculture must therefore be viewed in a broad context. Agricultural land, for instance, only acquires immediate agricultural value when combined with labour, management, capital and a supporting infrastructure into a productive, operating farm system (Bryant and Russwurm, 1979). Farming landscapes, in turn, are more than simply the result of combining a set of inputs into an agricultural production system. Understanding agriculture and farming landscapes requires recognition of their links with the broader society (Olmstead, 1970). Firstly, the farm unit consists of a variety of elements, e.g. fields, labour units and machinery, linked together by flows within an operating system overseen by a farm entrepreneur or manager. These elements can be organised conceptually into sub-systems, e.g. the spatial, resource management and labour management sub-systems. The farm entrepreneur controls the sub-systems to greater or lesser degrees. In many cases, the farmer can exert little control because the elements and on-farm sub-systems are but part of a broader environment. Thus, although the farmer can modify field structure (size, shape, layout), for example, there are important constraints imposed by the existing settlement and cadastral structure. Similarly, the ecosystem places constraints on what enterprises can be engaged in, even though the biophysical environment can be modified to some extent, e.g. by drainage, fertilisation and stone-removal. The broader economic, social and political systems also place constraints on the farm operation.
310
Secondly, flows, e.g. of products, inputs and information, tie the farm and the agricultural industry even more strongly to the broader society. This independence has become more complex as agriculture has increasingly replaced on-farm resources, e.g. labour, with non-farm inputs. Inexorably, the dynamics of agricultural change and of the broader society are interwoven; agriculture near cities is thus tied both to the meso-scale processes operating within urban-centred regions and to macro-scale national and international forces, This complexity is further comp~cated by the differences between farm entrepreneurs (Bryant, 1981) and their individual farm situations, e.g. stage in life cycle, educational background, family size, likelihood of family succession, financial wealth and basic attitudes to farming (cf. Bryant, 1973a). Thus, the forces influencing farm investment decisions that result in farm structure and farm landscape changes have both on-farm and off-farm origins.
PRESSURES ON FARMING IN URBAN-CRN~RED REGIONS
Western agriculture has undergone tremendous changes in the past century, related to the processes of economic development, industrialisation and urbanisation. For example, agriculture has experienced severe labour competition from growing non-farm sectors as well as substantial t~hnolo~~~ change, including improvement in transportation technology and the accompanying inter-regional competition. There is no reason to believe that agriculture near cities has been any less subject to such forces than elsewhere even though much of the research on farming in urban-centred regions has emphasised a particular sub-set of urbanisation forces in explaining agricultural change (Munton, 1974). Indeed, farming change in these regions is often viewed as a process fuelled by urban forces which give rise to essentially *‘negative” agricultural change (Bryant and Russwurm, 1979). Thus, little at~ntion has been given either to other forces or to how the whole might vary regionally. In response to this, a framework incorporating both urbanisation and nonurbanisation forces has been suggested (Bryant et al., 1982). The urbanisation forces are associated with growing urban areas, viz. demand for agricultural produce and labour in the non-farm sectors, and for land for various urban-oriented functions. It is the set of negative impacts on agriculture related to the demand for land that has attracted the most attention. The nonurbanisation forces include technological change, general changes in living standards and life-style, inter-regional competition and political and institutional change. These forces combine in different ways to influence agricultural structure. The interactions may be modified in different regional or sub-regional environments and by the intervention of farm-level factors in the decisionmaking process linking the exogenous urbanisation and non-urb~~ation
311
forces with the agricultural structure (Fig, 1). How do these forces combine and how are the effects reflected in the farming landscape? What are the implications for conservation of the agricultural land resource and of farming landscapes?
farm
LEVEL
unit
Fig. 1. Factors influencing
agricultural change in urban-centred
regions.
In terms of agricultural viability, various combinations of forces and regional environment factors are suggested (Fig. 2). For simplicity, the impacts on agricultural viability are dichotomised as negative or positive, although in fact various degrees of impact exist. Furthermore, “positive” refers to the impact after an agricultural response takes place - the initial impact may be stressful, e.g. labour competition, but a positive response
312
may result. Clearly, both negative and positive influences may emanate from all three sources simultaneously. The net impact on agricultural structure and the evolving farming landscape depends on their interplay and refative strengths. UREANISATION
FORCES
. Positive
-
P
Negative
-
N
R E
F : A
r~~~~~~
I.
F A
L
c
”
I:
I
FP :: F-4 1
Fig. 2. Influences
on agricultural performance
in urban-centred
regions.
At one extreme, all forces might be complementary; for example, labour withdrawal from agriculture due to an urban tabour demand may combine with technological change (e.g. mech~~ation) in an area with favourable physical conditions to stimulate farm consolidation. The plateau areas around Paris illustrate this particularly well. Helped by favourable physical conditions and a process of property consolidation already established by the mid-19th century, large-scale arable farms now dominate these areas (Brunet, 1960; Bourdonnaye and Meunier, 1983). Other associated landscape changes are extensive hedgerow removal and the development of very large fields (see Figs. 3 and 4). The exodus of agricultural labour and entrepreneurs encouraged substantial farm consolidation, including much farmland rental, which then facilitated the subsequent adoption and inflation of agriculturat mechanisation. This process has practically become synonymous with agricultural development, modemisation and prosperity. Hence, when halted or impaired, for example, by high land prices near growing urban areas, many farmland conservationists interpret this as a major indicator of ~cultur~ deterioration (Meunier, 1983).
R
313
Another urbanisation force, neither unambiguously negative nor positive, may partially offset high land prices, viz. the increase in non-farm ownership of farmland around cities. This may represent advance land acquisition for urban development, protection of capital against inflation, incidental acquisition of land with purchase of a former farmhouse, or purchase of land for a building-lot (Bryant, 1982). This farmland may then be rented to remaining farmers. With a secure rental arrangement, long-term improvement in farm structure is permitted, eshibiting complementarity again. Where the arrangement is precarious, negative impacts may occur, both in terms of farm viability and landscape change.
Fig. 3. Typical culture rienced
Open arable agricultural landscape in the Plaine de Versailles, near Maulette. of many of the plateau areas in the Ilede-France region, a large-scale arable agrihas developed with large, consolidated fields. This is an area which has experelatively little population growth in the past 14 years.
Other complementary relationships stem from the market effect of a nearby urban agglomeration. One major effect early on was the development of specialised intensive agricultural zones around major urban areas. Often, these had developed when transportation costs were high, thus conferring an economic rent on local vegetable, fruit, milk and even vineyard production. Many of these zones still remain (see Fig. 5 and Fig. 4), although often in a fragmented form now because of more recent urban expansion (AREEAR, 1976; Meunier, 1983). In Ilede-France, by 1900 a whole series of intensive agricultural areas had developed, especially in the valley areas south and west, and on the hill slopes north and west, of Paris (Phlipponneau, 1956; Bourdonnaye and Meunier, 1983).
313
313
New transportation technology has attenuated the advantages these areas once had; for example, the share of Ilede-France in supplying its own vegetable and fruit needs dropped from 81% by tonnage in 1895 to 46% by 1950 (Bourdonnaye and Meunier, 1983). Nonetheless, some advantages remain. e.g. due to continued high transport costs to an urban-dominated market and opportunities for short-circuiting marketing channels. An example of the former is the sod production around many Central Canadian cities, while examples of the latter include direct sales to large-volume consumers (e.g. factory cantines, supe~~kets), “pick-your-own” (self-service) sales outlets, farm shops and horticultural operations with retail outlets (Laureau, 1983).
Fig. 5. Intensive orchard area between Aigremont and Chambourcy. Part of an intensive fruit-production area on the south slopes of the Seine valley between Orgeval and Chambourcy, this was a flourishing intensive agricultural zone from the 19th century to the 1950’s; since then, it has suffered particularly from urban development pressures and worsening markets for its fruit. It is still the major fruit-production area in the Ile-deFrance region.
The more recent types of direct sales outlets, often involving intensive vegetable (e.g. beans) and fruit (e.g. strawberries) production, are not associated with distinct zones. “Pick-your-own” outlets have a natural affinity for highways, but the general effect is a greater scattering of activities. Sometimes, these recent developments bring an intensive, almost industrialised, aspect to the farming landscape (e.g. greenhouses), a development not always appreciated by some planners and amenityconscious people (Munton,
316
1983). Yet, they may also break the monotony of an agricultural landscape reflecting an extensive field crop orientation (Fig. 6 and Fig. 4). Similarly, near-urban proximity enables some farmers to develop enterprises based on excess farm resources, e.g. boarding of horses, riding stables and long-term storage of recreational vehicles and boats in out-dated barns. These activities can provide useful supplementary income sources, thus increasing the financial and economic strength of the farm entrepreneur. Once again, the associated landscape attributes are not always well-appreciated by the amenity-conscious public.
Fig. 6. Isolated intensive vegetable and horticultural operation at Bazainville, another area with little population growth.
in the Plaine de Versailles
So far, the focus on complementary relationships between urbanisation and other forces has emphasised the point that the surroundings of cities are not a complete death-trap for agricultural endeavour! The net effect has been positive from the agricultural performance perspective. However, in all cases noted so far, some landscape changes may be viewed negatively from an amenity perspective, e.g. large fields, large metal barns and silos, greenhouses and broiler sheds. Overall, however, from an agricultural performance perspective, landscapes characterised by such complementary relationships can usefully be labelled landscapes of agricultural development. What happens when the forces are conflicting? The ultimate conflict is actual conversion of farmland for non-farm uses. Furthermore, for the continuing agricultural landscape and structure, non-farm development forces can reach critical levels beyond which agricultural development is thwarted
317
despite potentially positive non-urbanisation forces or regional environment factors. Here, the interplay of opposing forces results in agricultural degeneration. In such situations, a combination of several non-farm developmentrelated forces usually exists; individually, many of these forces appear to be insufficient to lead to agricultural decline. Trespass, theft and vandalism, for instance, generally create more of a nuisance than real financial hardship. Sometimes, adjacency of non-farm development may be associated with levels of theft and vandalism which make the continued operation of a particular parcel of land problematic (Fig. 7). Similarly, harassment from non-farmers complaining about certain farming practices constitute another annoyance. Problems often cited include odours from intensive poultry and hog operations, dust from harvesting, noise from machinery, e.g. grain drying machinery, and diffusion of chemicals from fertiliser and pesticide application. Because of such complaints, some jurisdictions have adopted regulations to help separate nonfarm residences and intensive animal husbandry operations (cf. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, 1976). Public health concerns may dictate
Fig. 7. Abandoned field adjacent to non-farm development at Chambourcy. While this type of abandonment may reflect operational difficulties due to theft and vandalism, there are usually many other factors that combine to cause abandonment, such as retirement, fragmentation and poor markets.
318
the separation of certain land uses, but some problems arise from improper husbandry practices, e.g. inadequate waste management, and part of the problem may also reflect lack of understanding of agricultural operations by recent non-farm immigrants to the countryside - both of which can potentially be modified. Farm fragmentation, due to new highway construction, increased road traffic, other ~ghts-of-way (e.g. hydra-lines) and/or scattered non-farm development, can also render continuation of normal farm operations practically impossible. Awkw~diy-shads, small parcels may be cut off from the main farm by new highways and become abandoned (Fig. 8). Frequently, where exchange arrangements with neighbouring farms are not possible, the parcel may simply be bought by the highway authority and left abandoned. Heavy traffic may also make large-sized machinery movement difficult. Finally, in the more open countryside, scattered development may produce awkwardly-shaped fields with a much-diminished value for agriculture, thus hastening the process of farmland conversion.
Fig. 8. Abandoned farmland between two highways and a recreational area in the new town of St. ~uentin-en-Yvelines. Again, factors other than fragmentation contribute to such phenomena, such as imminent development and distance from main farming areas.
All these influences are associated with landscape impacts, both of the non-farm elements themselves and those associated with accompanying farm adjustments. At the limit, the farm adjustments involve disinvestment and
319
ultimately idling of the land resource. However, where the impact is less and other factors favourable, adaptive or coping adjustments may be made. For example, fencing parcels of land, especially in conjunction with relatively intensive fruit, market gardening and ho~icultur~ operations, is one response to vandalism and theft (Fig. 9). Adjustments in farming practices may help reduce complaints, e.g. not operating gram drying machinery late at night or making mod~ications to waste disposal systems. With fr~entation caused by highway construction, where land exchange arrangements are not possible, overpasses or underpasses may be feasible - a highway construction cost rather than a farmer-based adjustment. Machinery storage facilities may even be erected on separated blocks of land of sufficient size, or partial dismantling of machinery may be feasible, Some adaptations thus have a particular landscape impact, e.g. protective fencing, which may present problems from an amenity perspective, but which permit farmers to cope with certain negative influences in their en~o~ent.
Fig. 9. Fenced-in orchards along the heav~~trave~ed north of intensive urban development at Plaisir.
N30’7 at Feucnerolles,
just 5 km
Other non-farm development-related pressures are less visible in the landscape. Again, in extreme cases, they may seriously undermine ~c~tur~ viability as well as generating particular landscape changes. The costs ofservicing rural non-farm popuiaations when the costs are borne by property taxation may increase farming costs in urbanising areas since farms, being rela-
320
tively land-extensive, tend to bear a heavier burden than the non-farm population (e.g. Morgan, 1978). However, given the preferential treatment often given to farmland (see, e.g., Furuseth and Pierce, 1982), it seems unlikely that this factor in itself would lead to agricultural degeneration. The greater levels of uncertainty presumed to occur in advance of relatively rapid urban development (e.g. Sinclair, 1967; Bryant, 1974, 1981) have been hypothesised as shortening planning horizons for farm investment. Thus, the cost of agricultural investment increases and the likelihood of maintaining or increasing it decreases. Fixed investment would be more affected than variable costs; in extreme cases, the land might even remain idle. From the limited empirical evidence (cf. Bryant, 1981; Mu&on, 1983), the relative importance of this phenomenon is not yet adequately established. The ambiguity of the evidence is no doubt related to the relatively small potential losses of agricultural investment compared to the potentially large capital gains from sale of owner-occupied land for development. Thus, some recent field work around Paris (Bryant, 1981) suggested that while farmers are well aware of the uncertainties and urban pressures around them, they do not necessarily adopt strategies that support the hypothesis outlined above. Uncertainty, of course, is not only triggered by proximity to existing urban development, but also by other indicators of high development potential, e.g. planning designation of land for development, short-term rental of the farmland (especially in the West European context where farmland leases are generally much longer than in North America) and ownership of farmland by a development company. Evidence of agricultural disinvestment resulting from these factors is not easy to come by; behaviourally, the proposed mechanism is intuitively appealing, but the potential capital gains and the differences among farmers in terms of choice of coping strategies suggest that considerable variation is likely. Only with imminent development is land likely to be treated in similar ways by farmers, e.g. within an area undergoing expropriation for a New Town. In terms of landscape impacts, the frequent assumption is that high expectations of urban development are associated with an observable decline in agricultural land maintenance. At the extreme, there is no question - for instance, in Central Canada, where former agricultural land has been surveyed and staked out for development, but where final construction is held up, fields of golden rod and scrub are quick to appear! Beyond that, the evidence is less clear. Munton (1983), for example, graded land maintenance standards for a sample of farm occupiers in London’s Metropolitan Green Belt, His analysis supports several of the relationships implied above, e.g. poor land maintenance was associated with short-term renting of farmland and proximity to existing development and highways. However, considerable variation existed among the farmers surveyed and “some occupiers right on the urban edge continue to farm well, while others maintain their land poorly for no apparent reason” (Munton, 1983, p. 132). Furthermore, while there was support for a relationship between farmland appearance (the
321
landscape dimension) and urban-related factors, the link with agricultural investment and land productivity, the dimension of greater concern to the farmland conservationist, was not clarified. Another characteristic of farmers related to urbanisation forces with potentially negative impacts on agricultural performance and landscape is occupational status, viz. full-time, part-time or hobby farmer. The evidence is, however, contradictory. In Munton’s (1983) study, part-time farmers were associated with high land maintenance standards, while hobby farmers were associated with lower levels. Clearly, a whole range of part-time farmers exists and the debate continues (see, e.g. Fuller and Mage, 1976). Part-time farmers may opt for farming systems involving lower levels of intensity, but the comparison of part-time and full-time farmers on farms of similar scale and enterprise-mix is ambiguous regarding relative efficiency (cf. Gasson, 1966). Individually, many non-farm development-related pressures may have relatively limited negative impacts on agriculture. They may therefore be outweighed by more positive non-urbanisation forces or regional environment factors. Thus, in such cases, one would not expect to find agricultural structures degenerating; instead, one might expect evidence of continued development encouraged by the positive forces as well as adaptations to the negative pressures that nonetheless exist. Although sometimes called “landscapes of uncertainty” (cf. AREA, 1978), it seems more realistic to label them landscapes of agricultuml
adaptation.
With extreme non-farm development pressures, however, landscapes of agricultural degeneration exist. Severe farm fragmentation, vandalism and theft and great uncertainty would thwart many farmers. Frequently though, where agricultural degeneration has reached serious proportions in the urban fringe, unfavourable non-urbanisation or regional environment factors are also present. For instance, specialised fruit areas near Paris have suffered increased competition from regions with greater natural comparative advantages (AREEAR, 1976; Legendre, 1981; Biancale, 1982). In addition, some of these zones evolved under quite different conditions of farm technology; in particular, in the north Paris suburbs, intensive fruit and vegetable production developed on small, fragmented farms. Before any significant mechanisation, few problems existed even with the substantial intermixture of non-farm housing and agricultural land that developed. However, during the late 1940’s and the 1950’s, as mechanisation expanded in these sectors, these parcels of land became more and more inadequate. As urban development pressures increased, large-scale housing projects, e.g. at Sarcelles, created severe vandalism and trespass problems on adjacent parcels, while areas with a very fragmented property structure attracted additional single family housing, the orchards often being transformed into gardens. In these zones, remaining orchards are often poorly maintained and increasingly unproductive, with idling being not uncommon (Fig. 10). In extreme cases, an agricultural enclave remains where urban pressures are at their worst
(Bourdonnaye and Meunier, 1933). The long-term survival of such enclaves is problematic under a free-enterprise management system. Their survival as regional landscape components in the urbancentred region thus demands very special management approaches. When these zones are eventually built over, their total ag%-ulturat resources are not necessarily lost. For Deuil-la-Barre and Groslay, north of
Fig. 10. Abandoned orchard new single-family dwellings.
at Chambourcy,
Across
the
road from this parcel are several
Paris, for instanee, a story unfolds of farmers purchasing additional land for new orchards some 19-15 km from their farmsteads from the 1940’s (Bryant, 1973b), while gradually relinquishing their initial core fruitland a form of adaptation involving substitution of location. For Ilede-France, this is simply a recent example of a pattern of consolidation of specialised agricultural zones, intrusion of urban growth, and migration of the specialised farms beyond, that has recurred over several centuries (P~ippo~eau, 1956; AREEAR, 1976). This particular zone, ~ndergo~g severe urban devel-
323
opment pressures, had its problems compounded by an outdated farm structure and strong competition. Similarly, other non-urbanisation and regional environment factors may weaken agricultural viability or force change, e.g. reduction of protective tariff barriers and poor land quality, respectively. CONCLUSIONS
Agriculture in urbancentred regions has had to respond to a variety of pressures, only partly identifiable with non-farm development pressures. For agricultural land conservation, this implies that non-farm development control alone is not likely to be sufficient to achieve agricultural land conservation. To be productive, agricultural land must be combined with people and capital. The agricultural land conservationist must therefore be concerned with farm viability and continuation of a viable agricultural community. This argument also supports the notion that agricultural land conservation cannot be achieved simply through the traditional process of land-use planning, but demands additional measures in terms of farm structure improvements. For instance, in order to maintain competitiveness, urban fringe zones where agriculture is to be maintained should not be discriminated against in terms of farm improvement programmes and access to credit. Agricultural land conservation is not synonymous, however, with farm landscape conservation. The former implies continued agricultural develop ment, often associated with landscape changes not highly valued by the amenity-conscious public. Certainly, in landscapes of agricultural degeneration one might expect a fairly high coincidence between agricultural degeneration and deterioration in farm landscape amenity values. On the other hand, in landscapes of agricultural adaptation or landscapes of agricultural development, where positive influences outweigh negative pressures, agricultural development might contain elements of limited amenity value. Similarly, landscape amenity conservation may conflict with agricultural development and the economic exigencies of farming. Around Paris, in some scenically-protected areas, e.g. the Chevreuse Valley south of the agglomeration, finding ways of developing a viable agricultural structure has proved especially difficult because of conflicts between the buildings, infrastructure and field pattern deemed necessary for agricultural development and their low amenity value (Biancsle et al., 1978; Kuhn, 1980). The conceptualisation of the three types of farming landscapes is based on the underlying contemporary formative processes, rather than on the morphological characteristics of the biophysical environment and the type of agriculture. Thus, intensive specialised agriculture can potentially be found in landscapes of agricultural degeneration, agricultural adaptation and agricultural development; similarly for other types of agriculture. This alone suggests considerable flexibility in developing approaches to agricultural land in urban-centred regions. Furthermore, we should expect variation within each landscape type, both between farmers and even between fields on the
324
same farm. Even where conflicts seem insurmountable, it is still possible to find particular farms or groups of farms which have somehow managed to survive and develop - such exceptional cases merit close scrutiny in any attempt to develop management strategies. Conversely, in landscapes with positive ~~uences dom~ant, examples of ~~cultur~ disinvestment and deteriorating farm landscapes can be found, reflecting specific sets of circumstances affecting particular farms and land parcels. How these microscale differences should be ~comrn~at~ in developing movement strate gies is not clear, but they most certainly need to be addressed. From the agricultural land-use planning and management perspective, the three landscape types discussed above seem to represent a more realistic way of viewing agricultural change near cities. In any dynamic situation, stress is created - some is unquestion~ly negative, but some is positive. In particular, the landscapes of agricultural adaptation emphasise that innovation and adaptation in agriculture do occur in urban-centred regions, even in the urban fringe. Just because con~dicto~ forces operate and influence agriculture there does not mean that the net result is negative. By way of conclusion, it is suggested that the management challenge for agriculture in urban-centred regions is threefold. First, how can public intervention upgrade existing landscapes of agricultural degeneration and limit their development? Second, how can agricultural land conservation, with its implied development of agriculture, be reconciled with the increasing concern for the amenity values in farming landscapes? Third, and finally, how can agricultural land-use plarming and movement near cities cope with limitations caused by the macro-scale national and international forces to which agriculture there must continue to respond. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This article was written while the author was on sabbatical leave from the University of Waterloo, supported by a Leave Fellowship from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and a research grant from the French Ministry of External Affairs, which are gratefully acknowledged. Thanks are also extended to M. Delavigne and M. Squamioni of the Institut d’Am&nagement et d’Urbanisme de la RGgion d’llede-France and to M. Meunier of the Atelier Rggional d’Etudes Economiques et d’Amdnage_ ment Rural dlle-de-France for giving their time in discussing the ideas contained in this article. REFERENCES AREA (Atelier de Recherche et d’Etudes d’Am6nagement). 1978. evolution agricole et foncigre des rdgions suburbaines. Cahiers de l’IAURIF, 53: 3-40. AREEAR (Atelier R6gional d’Etudes Economiquer et d’Am&wgement Rural), 1975. L’Agriculture Sp6cialisBe en Xle de France. Ministry of Agriculture, Paris, 443 pp.
325 Biancale, M.. 1982. Les Coteaux de Chambourcy ai Orgeval. IAURIF (Institut d’Amenagement et d’urbanisme de la Region d’Ile-de-France), Paris, 79 pp. Biancale, M., Boyer, P. and Braut. M.-N., 1978. Etude sur le Devenir des Terres Acquises par la S.A.F.E.R. IAURIF,Paris, 116 pp. BlackselI, M. and Gilg. A.. 1981. The Countryside: Planning and Change. The Resource Management Series 2, George Allen and Unwin, London, 262 pp. Bourdonnaye (de la), A. and Meunier, J.D., 1983. L’Agriculture dans la Ceinture Verte de Paris. AREEAR, Ministry of Agriculture, Paris, 17 pp. Brunet, P., 1960. Structure Agraire et Economic Rurale des Plateaux Tertiaires entre la Seine et 1’Oise. Thesis for Doctorat es Lettres, University of Caen. Bryant, C.R., 1973a. L’agriculture face a la croissance m&ropolitaine: le cas des exploitations de grande culture expropriees par l’emprise de 1’Aeroport Paris-Nord. Econ. Rurale, 95: 23-25. Bryant, CR., 1973b. L’agriculture face 2 la croissance metropolitaine: le cas des exploitations fruitieres de Groslay et Deuil-la-Barre dans la grande banlieue de l’agglomeration parisienne. Econ. Rurale, 98: 35-55. Bryant, C.R., 1974. The anticipation of urban expansion. Part I. Some implications for agricultural land use practices and land use zoning. Geogr. Pol., 28: 93-102. Bryant, C.R., 1981. Agricultural change in an urbanizing environment: a case study from the Paris region, 1968 to 1975. Can. Geogr., 25: 27-45. Bryant, C.R., 1982. The Rural Real Estate Market: Geographic Patterns of Structure and Change in an Urban Fringe Environment. Publication 18, Department of Geography, University of Waterloo, Canada, 153 pp. Bryant, C.R. and Russwurm, L.H., 1979. The impact of non-agricultural development on agriculture: a synthesis. Plan Can., 19: 122-139. Bryant, C.R., Russwurm, L.H. and McLellan, A.G., 1982. The City’s Countryside: Land and its Management in the Rural-Urban Fringe. Longmans, London, 255 pp. Fuller, A.M. and Mage, J.A. (Editors), 1976. Part-Time Farming: Problem or Resource in Rural Development. Geo. Abstracts, Norwich, England. Furuseth, 0. and Pierce, J.T., 1982. Agricultural Land in an Urban Society. AAG Resource Publications in Geography, Washington, DC. Gasson, R.M., 1966. The Influence of Urbanization on Farm Ownership and Practice: Some Aspects of the Effects of London on Farms and Farm People in Kent and Sussex. Studies in Rural Land Use 7, Wye College, Wye, England. H.M.S.O., 1942. Land Utilisation in Rural Areas. Scott Committee Report, Cmd. 6378. Ministry of Works and Planning, London. Krueger, R.R.. 1978. Urbanization of the Niagara fruit belt. Can. Geogr., 22: 179-194. Kuhn, C., 1980. Bases Pedologiques du Developpement de l’hgriculture du Part Nature1 Regional de Chevreuse. IAURIF, Paris, 94 pp. Laureau, X., 1983. Agriculture p&i-urbaine: des entreprises pour demain. L’Agriculture d’Entreprise (Bulletin of the Centre de 1’Agriculture d’Entreprise, Paris), 171-172: 3-42. Legendre, A., 1981. Etude de la Stabilite de 1’Agriculture dans la Frange Urbaine du Valde-Marne. Atelier pour l’urbanisme, la Nature et l’Energie, Paris, 78 pp. Meunier, J.D., 1983. L’Agriculture en Ile de France. Note prepared for the Conseil Regional de I’Ile-de-France, AREEAR, Ministry of Agriculture, Paris, 7 pp. Morgan, J.B., 1978. The Urban Fringe Taxation Problem: a Case Study of Glanbrook Township. Unpublished B.E.S. Dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Waterloo, Canada. Munton, R.J.C., 1974. Farming on the urban fringe. In: J.H. Johnson (Editor), Suburban Growth. Wiley, London, pp. 201-223. Munton, R.J.C., 1983. London’s Green Belt: Containment in Practice. The London Research Series in Geography 3, George Allen and Unwin, London, 178 pp.
326 Ohnstead. C-W., 1970. The phenomena, functioning units and systems of agriculture. Geogr. Pol., 19: 31-42. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, 1976. Agricultural Code of Practice. Government of Ontario, Toronto, Canada. Philipponneau, M., 1956. La Vie Rurale de la Banlieue Parisienne. A. Colin, Paris. Prefecture de la RBgion d’Ile-de-France (PRIF), 1976. Les Z.N.E. de la Region d’IledeFrance: le Hurepoix. IAURIF, Paris. RBgion d’IledteFrance (RIF), 1983. Projet de Ceinture Verte de Paris et sa Banlieue. IAURIF and Agence des Espaces Verts de la Region d’Ilede-France, Paris. Sinclair, R.J., 1967. Von Thunen and urban sprawl. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr., 57: 72-67.